Editorial: Legislators should forget about election mandates

Reports from under the Capitol dome indicate bills dealing with local elections may converge into legislation that moves spring elections to the fall in odd-numbered years as nonpartisan affairs.

That’s better than the proposal to move the municipal and school board elections now conducted in the spring of odd-numbered years to the fall of even-numbered years and make them partisan affairs, but it’s still too much tinkering.

Absent any hue and cry for change from municipalities and school districts, legislators should leave things as they are.

Granted, moving municipal and school board elections to the fall of even-numbered years — when county, state and federal offices are on the ballot — would increase voter participation in the local elections, but the races would be an after-thought on the ballot.

Moving the local elections to the fall in odd-numbered years also could increase turnout by making going to the polls on the first Tuesday of November an annual rite.

The problem is that move sounds like the first step of a political dance that begins with moving local elections to the fall, then to the fall in even-numbered years and then as partisan elections.

Until city and school district officials clamor for partisan fall elections in even-numbered years, legislators should refrain from forcing their will upon the local election process.

There is enough partisan fighting and ideological rigidity at the state and federal levels now. There’s no need to spread more of it around.

Kelly Arnold, chairman of the Kansas GOP, acknowledged that Republicans want more Republicans in office, but said want he really wanted was to have more people involved in the municipal and school district elections.

Yes, turnout for those elections is generally abysmal unless there is a bond issue or some other question on the ballot to excite voters. But the voters who do cast ballots are those who care about their communities and are responsible enough to become informed on the local issues and local politics.

Voters who now go to the polls only for the state and federal elections wouldn’t pay more attention to the campaigns for local office if all the races were on the same ballot. What is gained by having uninformed and uninterested voters elect city officials and school board members?

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

If you believe that these elections would then become an after thought, then it is clear that we can never have an election with more than one office up for grabs. Further, those who already turn out in the spring because they "care about their communities and are responsible" will continue to do just that for those reasons.

One of the biggest things I would want to see gone is a two part thing. It is the putting of election questions/bond issues on the primary of the spring election. The worst turnout of all. First off, any question should always be on the general election and never a primary. Remember, a primary is about a party deciding who their candidate will be.

I am good with moving the spring elections to the fall. Items that are not partisan will not become so. That is just a scare tactic.

This is the first step to making school board elections partisan.
Once a candidate is forced to declare a party they can be endorsed and funded by AFP, KPI, and the Kansas Chamber, all so known as Koch Industries. Then their control of the state will be extended from the governor and both houses of the legislature to your local board of education.

Don't think this can happen? It already is happening in Iowa and Colorado.

Worried about low voter turnout for spring bond issue elections?
Once the big fellas are in control you won't have a bond issue to vote on. They will make sure of that.

Civil is correct. It took 20+ years for the takeover of the GOP in Kansas. It all started at the local precinct committee level. This is exactly the game plan now for local elections. These folks are patient and don't mind taking multiple steps over time to get the long term goal. It is nefarious and bad for all Kansan's. But, there is no one to stop them so we will all get to watch it happen.

put the questions and bond issues on the general fall ballots. people who vote conscientiously and are informed will continue to do so; sadly, apathy is a big problem and messing around with election dates is not going to help anything.

Currently, voters can't switch political parties within 21 days of partisan primaries. An earlier version of this editorial had incorrect information.

Because switching parties is a voter’s prerogative, Gov. Sam Brownback should veto the bill meant to prevent Kansans from changing political affiliation during the two months before an August primary. And because of strong opposition from local officials, the Legislature should shelve another bill that would move municipal and school board elections to the fall.

Proponents of the party-switching measure, which cleared the Senate on Wednesday and the House last year, can’t provide evidence of any elections being decided by voters who changed their affiliations just to participate in a primary. Yet the argument that such switching manipulates primaries and disenfranchises voters prevailed in the Senate, with Sen. Julia Lynn, R-Olathe, even making the baseless claim that “there have been federal elections that have been stolen in Kansas.”

Under the bill, unaffiliated voters could still change their registrations to declare a party affiliation. But the current 21-day period before partisan primaries when voters can’t switch from one party to another, which gives local election officials a reasonable breather on paperwork, would widen to more than two months.

As Sen. Carolyn McGinn, R-Sedgwick, unsuccessfully argued, voters may not even know on June 1 which candidates are running in which races for an August primary and therefore which party they want to support. She cited the particular confusion in 2012, when court-ordered redistricting made candidate filing a last-minute scramble.

The issues in each race may not be clear until shortly before Election Day. Contrary to one argument heard Wednesday, Kansans don’t always know whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

And protecting the integrity of the primary, apparently the main goal of the bill, translates as protecting parties and incumbents. It doesn’t empower voters, who could have any number of valid reasons for wanting to switch their affiliation in the run-up to a primary.

In one all-too-common example in Sedgwick County, five judicial races were decided during the August GOP primary in 2012. That meant just 14 percent of the county’s registered voters decided who would deliver justice to 100 percent of county residents. If somebody wants to switch affiliation to help choose judges or for any other reason, that’s his business.

On a similar theme, why are legislators trying to impose their will on cities and school districts regarding when elections should be held? What happened to local control? At least a Senate committee decided not to place municipal and school board elections on the same ballot as state and federal elections or to make them partisan. But in voting to move the races from spring to August and November of odd-numbered years, the committee dismissed the wishes of local officials. The bill shouldn’t go any further.

And all the passion exhibited by Republican lawmakers about safeguarding primaries and boosting local voting makes one wonder: Where’s the concern for the 15,000 or so Kansans who’ve tried to register to vote but seen their applications – and voting rights – put on hold because of the proof-of-citizenship law?